Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn is an unconventional politician, the normal rule

124»

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    edited March 2018
    Mortimer said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    And when 'Yes' loses again, what next?
    Unlikely but "Despair".

    all the old sheeple who are brainwashed for the union are diminishing , young want independence so will get ever more likely by the day.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Scott_P said:

    ...especially once the press have whipped up a suitable amount of outrage (they will)...

    I am occasionally amazed by the appalling things people will advocate if it serves their cause. Where you and I part company is that I think that a prolonged press campaign designed to raise hatred for a political cause is actually a bad thing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Mortimer said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    And when 'Yes' loses again, what next?
    Glad to see that you now welcome a 2nd referendum. Perhaps not the best day to be showing off your predictive powers tho'.
  • He's been a great Prime Minister since he came to power last year.... as he predicted he would.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    Given polls show Unionist parties will win a majority at the next Scottish Parliament elections that should kill off indyref2 talk for another decade at least
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    Guess he's never canvassed in Mansfield then. Or Stoke......
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Scott_P said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Good grief, you win the most ludicrous post of the day award.

    You alread claimed it with this "May should continue to offer concessions up to the limit of reasonableness and hopefully they will not be reciprocated leaving us with a deal that is one sided."

    Yet even as she rejected it, May recognised the benefits of the single market, sought continued, frictionless, access to it, and lamely admitted that we will all be the poorer for being outside it. What kind of leadership is this? Such self-contradictory thinking would give Descartes a headache. The same applies to her Through the Looking Glass “customs partnership” wheeze that, she said, would “mirror EU requirements”. If she means future customs arrangements will be reversed, back to front and inside out, she may well be right. What a nightmare of red tape is now in prospect from those who promised a liberating bonfire on the cliffs of Dover and will create, instead, a giant lorry-park.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/the-observer-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-speech?CMP=share_btn_tw
    As a good example of the short sightedness of EU regulation, they're currently trying to prevent the trafficking of antiquities, largely from the mid-east, but in so doing are suggesting the imposition of huge NTBs on my trade, antiquarian books:

    https://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/new-eu-regulations-on-art-trade-using-a-sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut/

    The UK govt would never be so foolish - and why? Because, altogether now, they're far more democratically accountable.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Scott_P said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I don't doubt that the ultra-remainers will never reconcile themselves to leaving the EU and it will continue to eat them up for many years.

    It's almost certainly true that there will be decades to come of instances where "bad" things happen, and there will be cries in Parliament and elsewhere of "this would not have happened if we were members of the EU", but it will not be ultra-remainers that are wailing and gnashing their teeth
    And if 'bad things' do happen it will provide an open-door for a party to offer a GE manifesto promise to rejoin the EU with no opt-outs, adopting the Euro, fully at the heart of the project.

    Except remainers never seem keen on this possibility. The reason being I suspect is that they are terrified that the UK will do fine outside of the EU and suggesting rejoining will be political kryptonite (except for the ultras for whom it will be catnip).
  • malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, I wanted Remain but voted Leave as I expected that to be more likely to cause a second Scottish Referendum.
    And send the Scots home,
    Ta' think again (and again)....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    SunnyJim said:

    Scott_P said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I don't doubt that the ultra-remainers will never reconcile themselves to leaving the EU and it will continue to eat them up for many years.

    It's almost certainly true that there will be decades to come of instances where "bad" things happen, and there will be cries in Parliament and elsewhere of "this would not have happened if we were members of the EU", but it will not be ultra-remainers that are wailing and gnashing their teeth
    And if 'bad things' do happen it will provide an open-door for a party to offer a GE manifesto promise to rejoin the EU with no opt-outs, adopting the Euro, fully at the heart of the project.

    Except remainers never seem keen on this possibility. The reason being I suspect is that they are terrified that the UK will do fine outside of the EU and suggesting rejoining will be political kryptonite (except for the ultras for whom it will be catnip).
    The UK as a whole can't even exist outside the EU.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Just had a look at the long run FTSE.

    Dear oh dear, it has gone up a paltry 140 PTS since the end of the last millennium, but back then sterling bought 1.6 euros and dollars !

    To gloat, for just a moment, in November 1999 my father sold all his equities to buy real assets... apart from a tactical play in 2003 he was out of the market until 2008...
    Apropos of nothing...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    And when 'Yes' loses again, what next?
    Glad to see that you now welcome a 2nd referendum. Perhaps not the best day to be showing off your predictive powers tho'.
    Never heard of a hypothetical?

    Though, more seriously, I have no objection to another referendum in, say, 20 years time - seems about right for 'once in a generation'.

    But, back to my point, what happens when Yes loses again?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    SunnyJim said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Scott_P said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Reasonable remainers and leavers understood the pragmatic tone and accepted that both sides will have to move towards the middle.

    Except that is the problem

    For may to get anything she wants, the EU have to move.

    They have shown no willingness to do so.

    So where does that leave us?
    Personally I hope the EU continue to show the intransigence they have displayed so far.

    May should continue to offer concessions up to the limit of reasonableness and hopefully they will not be reciprocated leaving us with a deal that is one sided.

    Knowing the psyche of the British public this won't be forgotten or forgiven and will remove any possibility of us rejoining for generations especially once the press have whipped up a suitable amount of outrage (they will).
    And you think the UK will pull together as a result of this?

    I don't doubt that the ultra-remainers will never reconcile themselves to leaving the EU and it will continue to eat them up for many years.

    Their seeing xenophobes under every bed is like McCarthy finding reds under every bed in the fifties.

    "Are you now, or have you ever been, a xenophobe?"
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited March 2018
    Off-topic:

    Sad to see that Wodger is not providing his Oscar tips. Based upon recent event I feel that sentiment will trump: BAFTA best-film will win; British effort will be ignored.

    [These comments are of a highly proficient programmer: They should not be interpretated as a 'someone who is/has a "snowflake" with the outcome.] As I said before DYOFR.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    SunnyJim said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Scott_P said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Reasonable remainers and leavers understood the pragmatic tone and accepted that both sides will have to move towards the middle.

    Except that is the problem

    For may to get anything she wants, the EU have to move.

    They have shown no willingness to do so.

    So where does that leave us?
    Personally I hope the EU continue to show the intransigence they have displayed so far.

    May should continue to offer concessions up to the limit of reasonableness and hopefully they will not be reciprocated leaving us with a deal that is one sided.

    Knowing the psyche of the British public this won't be forgotten or forgiven and will remove any possibility of us rejoining for generations especially once the press have whipped up a suitable amount of outrage (they will).
    And you think the UK will pull together as a result of this?

    I don't doubt that the ultra-remainers will never reconcile themselves to leaving the EU and it will continue to eat them up for many years.

    Their seeing xenophobes under every bed is like McCarthy finding reds under every bed in the fifties.

    "Are you now, or have you ever been, a xenophobe?"
    What is going on in the heads of hypothetical remainers seems to weigh heavily on the minds of leavers. Are you really sure that this whole thing is really about Europe at all?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    viewcode said:

    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.

    Crashing many live nuclear reactors into the tundra or sea is properly nuts.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    glw said:

    viewcode said:

    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.

    Crashing many live nuclear reactors into the tundra or sea is properly nuts.
    Well, yes...

    [I actually burst out laughing on that, thank you... :) ]
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    edited March 2018
    What is going on in the heads of hypothetical remainers seems to weigh heavily on the minds of leavers. Are you really sure that this whole thing is really about Europe at all?

    What do you think it is about if it isn't Europe?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    I really want Roger Deakins to win the Oscar for Blade Runner 2049. Nothing to do with him living down the road......

    Pretty hard to see past most of the red hot favourites at the Oscars. I think Frances McDormand will win best actress, although I would prefer Sally Hawkins to get the nod. 3 Billboards is a strange film on many levels. Given that the voters tend to comprise liberal Americans, the central character of Mildred Hayes is a deeply unpleasant, violent, criminal character who represents the dark side of even Trump voters. Maybe it is meant to be more comically cynical than I got on first viewing - or would expect in an American film - but Mildred is a horror show.

    The same for Allison Janney as the mother in I, Tonya. Another character who takes self-empowerment to extremes.

    The oscar I will find diffcult to agree with is Sam Rockwell in 3 Billboards. I was not at all convinced by his Damscene conversion. Maybe down to the script, but his pivot seemed just implausible. There were better performances that will be overlooked.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited March 2018
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
    Russia's big problem is it is being eclipsed as the number two superpower by China, with whom it shares a 2,500 mile land border. Russia spends three times as much as China as a percentage of GDP, but only a third as much in cash terms because its GDP is quite small. Russia is being outspent and out-developed and there's no spare change down the back of the sofa to do much about it.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    SunnyJim said:

    What is going on in the heads of hypothetical remainers seems to weigh heavily on the minds of leavers. Are you really sure that this whole thing is really about Europe at all?

    What do you think it is about if it isn't Europe?

    Maybe for some people it is about not feeling good about themselves.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    malcolmg said:

    Mortimer said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    And when 'Yes' loses again, what next?
    Unlikely but "Despair".

    all the old sheeple who are brainwashed for the union are diminishing , young want independence so will get ever more likely by the day.
    Afternoon Malc! :D

    Only trouble is the young get old... We were both young once. ;)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
    Indeed.
  • NEW THREAD

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
    Russia's big problem is it is being eclipsed as the number two superpower by China, with whom it shares a 2,500 mile land border. Russia spends three times as much as China as a percentage of GDP, but only a third as much in cash terms because its GDP is quite small. Russia is being outspent and out-developed and there's no spare change down the back of the sofa to do much about it.
    The idea that Russia can be a superpower is now laughable. Spending more on defence does not change the fact that her economic fortunes are dependent on commodity prices over which she has little control, her population is declining, and many of her talented people leave the country. She may retain more nuclear weapons than the USA, but in the former Soviet states and the world at large, Russia’s influence can only decline.

    A lot more of the rot within will be visible when Putin goes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
    Russia's big problem is it is being eclipsed as the number two superpower by China, with whom it shares a 2,500 mile land border. Russia spends three times as much as China as a percentage of GDP, but only a third as much in cash terms because its GDP is quite small. Russia is being outspent and out-developed and there's no spare change down the back of the sofa to do much about it.
    In economic terms China, India, Japan, even the UK are bigger than Russia but in foreign policy terms Russia punches above its weight because it spends more and is prepared to intervene overseas when necessary. For example, it was Russia which led anti ISIS intervention in Syria and did so to ensure Assad became the key anti ISIS figure not US and western backed rebels.

    When was the last time China intervened militarily to any significant degree beyond its own borders?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Um, isn't it to do with Putin's announcement of new weapons last week? Because we're constantly onanisming over Brexit we didn't discuss it. But Putin announced several new weapons systems, none of which we can defend against and one of which (the nuclear powered cruise missile) might explain the radioactivity./

    I find it hard to believe that even the Russians would want a nuclear reactor powered missile. Sure the range is potentially huge, but choosing a weapon system that is all but untestable is a damn good way of ensuring failure.

    A long-range unmanned stealthy bomber with conventionally powered missiles would offer most of the benefits, and be a hell of a lot safer and easier to develop.
    That would be the way I would do it, but the advantage of a dirty reactor is that they're an effective brute-force solution. If you're willing to have an open-air reactor and ditch all the shielding, then you can build something cheap quick, simple & powerful. If the Russians have done this, it's a hell of a thing.

    But as you correctly point out, it's going to be very difficult to test.
    And you can see how testing would be critical: quite a lot of "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, tovarisch" situations before you get it right. OTOH Russia hasn't necessarily the money or the expertise to do stealth bomber properly, plus their willy-waving potential is necessarily low - come and look at my entirely invisible penis, sort of thing.
    Russia's big problem is it is being eclipsed as the number two superpower by China, with whom it shares a 2,500 mile land border. Russia spends three times as much as China as a percentage of GDP, but only a third as much in cash terms because its GDP is quite small. Russia is being outspent and out-developed and there's no spare change down the back of the sofa to do much about it.
    Yup, and Russia has an “election” soon. Where Mr Putin is up again. They’re finding it very difficult to accept their loss of power.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    SunnyJim said:

    Scott_P said:

    It's almost certainly true that there will be decades to come of instances where "bad" things happen, and there will be cries in Parliament and elsewhere of "this would not have happened if we were members of the EU", but it will not be ultra-remainers that are wailing and gnashing their teeth

    And if 'bad things' do happen it will provide an open-door for a party to offer a GE manifesto promise to rejoin the EU with no opt-outs, adopting the Euro, fully at the heart of the project.
    Except remainers never seem keen on this possibility. The reason being I suspect is that they are terrified that the UK will do fine outside of the EU and suggesting rejoining will be political kryptonite (except for the ultras for whom it will be catnip).
    Of course Remainers are not keen on leaving the EU and coming back in, when the existing conditions are so much better. Far better to forget the whole nonsense and stay as we are.

    Why are the interests of the whole country to be sacrificed on the altar of internal Conservative Party squabbles?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    This thread is like SO this morning.

    Whereas, over on the new thread.....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cheers, Dr. Parma. Hope you're having nicer weather than us.

    Mr. G, change in position, no? I'm not attacking you for it, just checking I remembered correctly.

    MD, Given their subsequent behaviour and grabbing back of all the devolved powers to Westminster it has proven totally that we can never trust Westminster to act in the interests of Scotland , they are only interested in retaining power for themselves regardless of impact on Scotland. The sooner we get our next referendum going the better.
    Given polls show Unionist parties will win a majority at the next Scottish Parliament elections that should kill off indyref2 talk for another decade at least
    Cuckoo does not describe the guff you come out with
This discussion has been closed.